A, Berblinger, a German, who is at present serving a sentence for defrauding the Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation, made his appearance in the Shanghai Provisional Court of Civil Appeals on November 17 as appellant against a decision rendered by the Court of First Instance against him for $6,000, salary and commissions, in favour F. de Stunger.
Berblinger appealed on. behalf of his firm, now in agents of the Cairo Ital }Co., and de Stunger's claim was as former agent of the Cairo Italian Cigarette Ca. in Manchuria, Berblinger based his appeal on the ullaged failure of the judge of the Court of First Instance to give reasons for accepting de Stunger's claim in spite of the fact that he, appellant, disputed it and of the Judge's failure to entertain his counter-claim for $13,000. Further more, he alleged, the judge d regarded his (appellant's) object-fon to appellee's claim for commission amounting to $424, nnd misdirected himself and misunder-
Jstood the question of appellants counter-claim for $13,779. He asked jthe Court of Appeals to reverse the decision of the Lower Court and to enter one in his favour.
Appellee's answer was that appel-Innt's reasons were not sufficient and were inconsistent with facts, The Court of First Instance accepted appellee's claim because all the items were clearly stipulated in the contract, except the damages, which were reduced at the time of judgment,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.